Would it be considered cheating?

[Rudar Dimble]

[QUOTE=fable]But it's not an unknown factor if you establish boundaries verbally with the other person in the relationship, they do the same, and you put it all on paper so no one can claim it wasn't said.[/QUOTE]
Fable, just out of curiousity: does it really happen that people put such things on paper, like you claimed? For instance, at a pschycological treament.

[C Elegans]

Well, I am against it. Simply due to personal experiences. But isn't everyone drawing from personal experiences on this matter?

My first understanding was that you were against explicit communcation, then I thought you were not against it, only against prospective contracts, but now you explicitly say that you are actually against it, but at the same time you give examples from you own relationship that I would clearly define as agreements. I believe this is partly a matter of semantics.

And yes of course, in your own relationships everything is about personal experience, however, you can also have an opinion based on statistics, like "what works best or worst for most people" or what are the most common problem. Personal experience has no bearing on what is good for other people, only what is good for you. Statistics can give a general image of what is good for most people, although you must always assess each individual case. I wouldn't recommend everybody to have open relationships because it works best for me. I would however recommend most people have open communication, because as I said above, it works best for most people. If you and your girlfriend does not want explicit open communication, that's of course your choice, but I honestly don't understand the difference between what I describe as "explicitely telling your partner what you want, expect and what values you have on different things" and what you describe about you telling your gf you would be disappointed if she didn't wore white at your wedding, and I can't see it's not an explicit agreement that you have told her and she knows that the only reason you would dump her is if you stop loving her.

I have the idea that you keep stretching your definition of an agreement with every reply I post. . Just trying to fit my relationship into the 'agreement thing'. Damn you . But if this is the definition, then yes it's an agreement we have . Does that make it a contract? I'd say no. Do we have a relationship with agreements on *how* to act? No. Why not? Because you don't know how you are going to react when being put into the situation.

LOL! Trying hard to avoid that term? Well, I don't know exactly what Fable, Dottie and Magrus mean, but what I mean with "explicit agreement" does not need to be a rule like you have rules in football and it does not need to include propective acts (although it can). An agreement between a couple could be anything from a written contract that's even legally valid, to a simple conversation where both parties explain their views to each other and reach a conclusion that both understand and accept.

[C Elegans]

[QUOTE=Rudar Dimble]Fable, just out of curiousity: does it really happen that people put such things on paper, like you claimed? For instance, at a pschycological treament.[/QUOTE]

Just because I once worked as a clinical psychologist for a while: yes, I know it happens in marriage councelling and family therapy, for the reasons Fable mentions.

[fable]

[QUOTE=Rudar Dimble]Fable, just out of curiousity: does it really happen that people put such things on paper, like you claimed? For instance, at a pschycological treament.[/QUOTE]

I see that CE has beat me to this, but yes: it is a method employed by marriage counsellors in the US, and based on what I've heard from various friends and associates over the years, it's quite popular. Like any counseling concept, though, it needs to be taken seriously and thoroughly by all concerned to work. It is a communications tool, and no tool is better than the hand that wields it.

[Rudar Dimble]

[QUOTE=C Elegans]An agreement between a couple could be anything from a written contract that's even legally valid, to a simple conversation where both parties explain their views to each other and reach a conclusion that both understand and accept.[/QUOTE]
And that's the difference. We reach a conclusion and both understand. BUT we don't have to (or expect the other to) accept.

For me that ends this discussion for it started with 'explicit agreements', which I don't make (implicit agreements...may be, but only in a way that you don't feel bounded by them) and we are nitpicking on the term 'agreement' now. We probably could go on and on about this, while it's a matter of personal feelings. I think I know my relationship better than anyone else, so when I feel/say that I don't have a relationship based on agreements, I'm probably right about this. Not out of arrogance of disrespect to your opinion, but simply because I can not describe my long term relationship in five or six post.
Besides that, I asked my girlfriend, because I wanted to know whether I was the only one who thought about our relationship this way. See agreed with me (LOL yes, that's an agreement )

[Rudar Dimble]

[QUOTE=fable]I see that CE has beat me to this, but yes: it is a method employed by marriage counsellors in the US, and based on what I've heard from various friends and associates over the years, it's quite popular. Like any counseling concept, though, it needs to be taken seriously and thoroughly by all concerned to work. It is a communications tool, and no tool is better than the hand that wields it.[/QUOTE]
I find it funny/remarkable that those kind of things tend to be much more popular in the US than in Europe, or at least the Netherlands. Well, that's just how I think it is. I don't have any records concurring this.

[winter rose]

[QUOTE=fable]
Good. I think open, honest communication between people in a world whose entertainment sources drive us ever more away from one another is the most important thing to keeping relationships real. [/QUOTE]

Proper communication is definately a key to a healthy relationship.

On a side note, the word contract has implications of something legal and if it is not met, the consequences would be enforced. Those are just the stigmas to that particular word.

I think in a relationship people have mutual agreements. They outline what they want, what they need and what would hurt them etc.This suggests that people in a relationship do things because they care about each other not because they have to.

[C Elegans]

And that's the difference. We reach a conclusion and both understand. BUT we don't have to (or expect the other to) accept.

Ok, I understand. Btw, in case you wonder why I ask you so many questions, it's not because I don't believe you or think there's something wrong with what you are saying, it's simply that I am just not very interested in discussing general feelings about things in vague terms, I find it much more interesting to get a clear image of the other persons opinons, values or situation.

I find it funny/remarkable that those kind of things tend to be much more popular in the US than in Europe, or at least the Netherlands. Well, that's just how I think it is. I don't have any records concurring this.

I wouldn't know about the Netherlands, but when I was a psychology student we had literature from the UK and Swedish teachers, and that suggested that the use of written contracts was quite common in family therapy and marriage councelling in both these countries. The function is not that these contracts should have any legal validity, but it's used as a method to compare plans and expectations to reality.

[fable]

[QUOTE=winter rose]Proper communication is definately a key to a healthy relationship.

On a side note, the word contract has implications of something legal and if it is not met, the consequences would be enforced. Those are just the stigmas to that particular word.[/quote]

I suspect this is a matter of background. When I hear the word contract, I immediately think of social contracts, a term used to describe interactions between the governors and the governed, and within a learning institution, work structure, or family matrix. Most people probably think of legal contracts, as you mention, but that's why I left the word legal out of my suggestion. There's nothing legally binding about a contract arrived at under the auspices of a marriage counselor, or simply between two people who want to arrive at a clear understanding of their expectations from a relationship. In this case, its main purpose is as a tool for clarification.

I think in a relationship people have mutual agreements. They outline what they want, what they need and what would hurt them etc.This suggests that people in a relationship do things because they care about each other not because they have to.

From my perspective, agreements are fine, as long as the conditions are understood in advance. Problems arise when Johnny or Janie attach unstated conditions to the relationship which they assume--probably because at home, they were a given--their partner knows without statement. And of course, the partner doesn't know, because each family has its own set of rules and values in which some unique entries aren't uncommon.

This is where the marriage counselor provides a service, and that's why contracts are a tool they use: because the contract gets into the open all those unspoken, assumed areas about oneself and one's partner that were never stated. I'm not suggesting contracts are the only way to go if problems arise in a relationship, but given the casual way in which people often conduct one of the most serious of social contracts--marriage--these days, complete clarity, in conversation and on paper, sounds to me like a very good piece of advice.